Regular BRAD BLOG readers will be familiar with the stories of the three Cuyahoga County, OH Elections Workers who have been indicted on felony charges for gaming the 2004 recount, but this report provides many more details and corroboration from the Prosecutors. It also reminds us, that though the Elections Workers have been indicted on felony charges, they continue to work at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections! Only in Ohio! (well, okay, maybe Florida, too...)

This is incredibly mind-blowing...Even to us...

Workers accused of fudging '04 recount

After the 2004 presidential election, Cuyahoga County election workers secretly skirted rules designed to make sure all votes were counted correctly, a special prosecutor charges.
...
Three top county elections officials have been indicted, and Erie County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter says more indictments are possible.
...
Internet bloggers have cried foul since 2004 about election results in Ohio, one of the key states in deciding the election. They have been tracking Baxter's investigation with online posts about the indictments.

Baxter's prosecution centers on Ohio's safeguards for ensuring that every vote is counted.

Baxter charges that Cuyahoga election workers - mindful of the monthlong Florida recount in 2000 - not only ignored the safeguards but worked to defeat them during Ohio's 2004 recount.

Candidates for president from the Green and Libertarian parties requested the Ohio recount. State laws and regulations specify how a recount works.

Election workers in each county are supposed to count 3 percent of the ballots by hand and by machine, randomly choosing precincts for that count.

If the hand and machine counts match, the other 97 percent of the votes are recounted by machine. If the numbers don't match, workers repeat the effort. If they still don't match exactly, the workers must complete the recount by hand, a tedious process that could take weeks and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But the fix was in at the Cuyahoga elections board, Baxter charges.

Days before the Dec. 16 recount, workers opened the ballots and hand-counted enough votes to identify precincts where the machine count matched.

"If it didn't balance, they excluded those precincts," Baxter said.

"The preselection process was done outside of any witnesses, without anyone's knowledge except for [people at] the Board of Elections."

On the official recount day, employees pretended to pick precincts randomly, Baxter says. Dozens of Cuyahoga County election workers sat at 20 folding tables in front of dozens of witnesses and reporters.

They did the hand and machine count of 3 percent of the votes 34 of the 1,436 precincts and when the totals matched, the recount was completed by machines.
...
"They screwed with the process and increased the probability, if not the certainty, that there would not be a full countywide hand count," Baxter said.
...
[Executive director of the Cuyahoga County elections board, Michael] Vu acknowledged that the selection of precincts was not completely random because precincts with 550 votes or fewer were not used.

Nor were precincts counted where the number of ballots handed out on Election Day failed to match the number of ballots cast.
...
Baxter has said he can't understand why the three people indicted all managers - continue to work at the election office.

* * *

UPDATE 1/24/2007: Two of the indicted election officials found guilty of gaming the recount, charged with maximum penalty. Details...

I think the recount should begin again, in light of this. How come we just say, "Oh, that was so long ago"??? This means THERE WAS NO OFFICIAL RECOUNT AND BUSH SHOULD BE OUT OF OFFICE...RIGHT NOW!!!

If not, that means it's OK to steal an election, as long as a year goes by before anything is done officially. Is that the way murder works, too? If you murder someone, "well, a year went by...forget about it!"

See how they say "WORKERS accused of fudging '04 recount." I guess the election board MANAGERS knew nothing about it. That's the Plain Dealer for you. They SUCK. Too bad they weren't covering all this YEARS ago. Too bad they don't investigate what happened to hundreds of millions of workers comp. funds. Too bad they don't ask, "Should a would-be governor be purchasing stuff unknowingly? What if he does the same as governor?" The Plain Dealer is a stupid, patriarchal, misogynistic, career-ruining, hierarchical, class-warring, dumbed-down propaganda mouthpiece for the ruling class.

So tell us something we DON'T know!!! We know Ohio was rigged along with Florida, NM(?), Arizona(?), and heaven only knows what others. The problem has been identified, now the solution - paper, pencil, and non partisian counters. Maybe those workers will sing like a canary and follow the chain. I'm sure they were working for someone- That person needs to be jailed too.

Is there a way for the people to stand up and DEMAND election of '04 was a setup and should be overturned?How long will we permit this BS to continue,while they are trying to destroy our way of living,as each day we see Bush's deceptions and lies unfold.We are fighting for everything America stands for,and George Bush MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!He is nothing but a warmongering and vicious tyrrant!!

A new poll is same ole same ole, the president and vice president ... a.k.a. republicans, are going down (link here).

It boils down to "By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress" (ibid, bold added).

The hypnotic residue of the way the republican talking points driven MSM thinks is still out there though. They said that "The good news is Democrats don't have much of a plan" (ibid).

How twisted does one's concept of politics and government have to become for the leading party's obligation to have "much of a plan" be shifted to the minority party not in power?

Whatever happened to the notion that the president and the party in power must have "much of a plan"?

If the leader's plan is bad, how is it beneficial to look elsewhere before the bad plan is considered to be relevant?

Why ask for the minority party's plan so that it can be scrutinized instead of the president's plan, then reject that plan and say "not much of a plan" so I am sticking to my bad plan?

Does anyone really think the president would ever consider any other plan than his own?

His plan is to "keep both feet deep in Iraqi sh*t", "keep lying", "keep grasping for power to spread the wealth and influence of the oil barons", "keep leaking", "keep using Diebold fraud machines", "keep on torturing", "keep on bankrupting America", and "keep on keeping on"?

Reality check. Leaders must change their own bad plans. Leaders don't say "I do not approve of the democratic plan so I must stick to my bad plan".

Leadership is not composed of becoming stubborn and refusing to change a bad plan. Leadership is admitting the wrong and correcting it.

#11
Robert,
I completely agree. If only Feingold would ask Conyers to be his running mate in '08. They are the only two politicians who seem unsullied & uncorrupted.
Boxer, Biden, Obama, Durbin, Kennedy, Clinton...I can't think of a Democrat who HASN'T disappointed, other than these two.

I had missed the news that Fiengold and Conyers were chairmen of congressional committees that had held congressional hearings, issued subpoenas, and conducted oversite hearings.

Hearings to fix bad electronic machines that are charged as fraudy, failing, incompetent, and useless for doing fair, open, and honest elections.

Hearings to stop the Iraq war, Iran war, torture, presidential lying, presidential leaking of secret documents to harm political opponents, and a whole host of other wrongs.

Go figure. I thought Fiengold and Conyers were in the minority party which has no chairman of any congressional committee, no majority membership in any congressional committee, and could not even get a hearing room, much less call and schedule a committee hearing.

Gosh, if I had known that I would have changed my plan to a better plan.

For Dredd: You've identified one of the major flaws in political discourse in the 21st century.

When Bush was caught spying illegally against American citizens (after first lying through his teeth about having done so), the media spin wasn't about illegality. It was about whether Democrats would be able to use the issue effectively in the 2006 elections. "Will this issue divide Democrats?" not
"Did Bush break the law?"

When Murtha came out for pulling out of Iraq, it was the same story. "Democrats are divided over a timetable for leaving Iraq?" not "How much longer will a failed policy be allowed to remain in place?"

Same with Feingold's censure resolution. "It's dividing the Democrats" not "What are the merits?"

Blame the media. They're still protecting Bush, because of corporate ownership that insists on it, because they're afraid of being accused of a liberal bias, and (though this is changing a bit) because they fear retaliation in the form of lost access for any negative stories.

.Joan said on 4/7/2006 @ 6:26am PT...#11
"Robert, I completely agree. If only Feingold would ask Conyers to be his running mate in '08. They are the only two politicians who seem unsullied & uncorrupted.
Boxer, Biden, Obama, Durbin, Kennedy, Clinton...I can't think of a Democrat who HASN'T disappointed, other than these two."

Joan,

Feingold could ask Conyers to be his running mate but it would be a complete waste of time. This dead party which stands FOR Bush and FOR the Republicans ain't about to put up Feingold in 2008. Not going to happen. Since they refuse to stand with him on this meaningless, lame and unConstitutional censure of Bush, they sure as hell ain't going to nominate him as their presidential candidate for goodness' sakes. That's wishful thinking. Just like it's wishful thinking that the Dims are going to take back something in 2006 when the Repugs control and own the voting machines. Anything can happen politically between now and then and Bush's current poll numbers are meaningless because of that. Another engineered 911 could change those poll numbers instantly.

The Dims presidential candidate will be some bourgeois elite pro-war, pro-corporate neocon like Hillary who is to the right of Bush on Iran.

I do agree with your other comments. I can't stand the bourgeois elite pro-war Dead Democratic Party. There are only a few good traditional Democrats remaining in there. Traitor Barbara Boxer voted to give Bush his unPatriot Act. Dianne "I'm really a Republican" Feinstein is an Iraq and Afghanistan war profiteer through her husband's company, Perini. Regardless of their minority status, the Dims could at least STAND FOR THEIR CONVICTIONS, IF THEY HAVE ANY (they don't appear to), rather than standing FOR Bush and FOR the Republicans most of the time since 2000. You didn't say this, but it's a fuking cop-out and excuse to say that they can't be an "opposition party" because they're in the minority or they've been threatened. That's part of the job today. So if they don't like the job then get the hell out of there! When the Repugs were in the minority they didn't have any trouble standing for their convictions.

Jeannie King asked in Comment #9 if there is a way for the people to stand up and demand the 2004 selection be overturned.

Well, unfortunately Jeannie, The People (the overwhelming majority of people I've talked with) could care less about this. "Get over it" is what The People told us protesters who took to the streets to protest the stealing of the 2000 election. I even had relatives tell me to "Get over it." One does not "get over" the stealing of democracy. Period. (But you all know that.) Most people think that we still have fair, honest and legitimate elections in this country. They think that anyone who talks about the many problems with these e-voting machines and them being easily rigged and hackable, well that's just "looney conspiracy theorist" stuff. I've heard that over and over in response to my postings on message boards. And people who talk about this e-voting problem hold absolutely no credibility with the sheep (especially Repugs) EVEN when we provide credible articles from Bradblog dot com or any other credible site on this issue.

Even most Dem supporters are in denial about this e-voting problem. They talk as if they're going to waltz into the polls in November and change both houses of Congress and the White House in 2008! Have another hit, is what I say to that. Dream on. As Brad has said, we're heading for an electoral meltdown with the 2006 election. I couldn't agree with him more. Although the pro-Bush state media (corporate media) will probably cover it all up.

Other than John Conyers, the pro-war Dead Democratic Party has shown absolutely no interest in this e-voting problem. I mean, John "Bush-Lite" Kerry conceded to Bush right away after Edwards had said that every vote would be counted. Yeah, uh huh. The Dims pretend to think or actually think that we still have legitimate elections in this country. After 2000, I knew the 2004 "election" was going to be stolen but Barbara Lee said she wasn't going to call for impeachment of Bush because she wanted the 2004 "election" to be the referendum on Bush. To that I thought: Barbara Lee, what the hell is wrong with you? You want a stolen election to be the referendum on Bush? Nancy Pelosi has said the same thing about 2006. She still believes in elections, or pretends to! Sigh!

We need to return to paper ballots/pencils with the ballots counted with members of the public present. And until we do, we will not have democracy in this country. Although Florida under the Bush Crime Family has made it illegal to return to paper ballots/pencils. Isn't that convenient.

When Miller told a reporter about this exchange and it appeared in print, another reporter went to Kerry, who (through his press aide) denied having said it. In other words, Kerry called Miller a liar, but didn't have the guts to do it himself; instead he put it on a young lady who worked for him.

Is this the kind of man you'd expect to now go to Ohio and claim the state? Sure, he won it. Sure, he won the election. We know that. And he knows that. And his wife said publicly that the election was a fraud. But a man who sends a young female aide out to (in effect) call the author of a book a liar is hardly going to stand up and be counted now.

That's the reality, Emily. Whether it's because of some Skull & Bones tradition at Yale, or because Kerry wants to run in 2008 and is afraid of being labeled a "sore loser," or for some other reason, he won't challenge the 2004 election. Period. And he'll lie through an aide to avoid having to do so.

He thinks it's all about HIM, when it's really about US. In that respect he's like almost every politician that ever lived, except for an occasional Feingold or Conyers.

If there's ever a hope for democracy now, we need to invigorate it. We can choose our next democratic candidate if we mobilize. How about a little inspiration from Molly Ivins?:http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0310-20.htm
There's plenty of room for cynicism which speaks volumes for the need to hold close to our ideals and fight for the Fiengolds and Conyers of our party (Dean almost made it in 2004, and this movement landed him in his current positon).
Sooner our later the fraud will come to light. Here in NM, our machines are getting cleaned up. Tyranny doesn't go away in a day.

I thought the Ivins' article was excellent. She told it like it is. No living in denial there, as far as the pro-war Dead Democratic Party is concerned. The only problem I had with it was that it's as if she is still living under the illusion (denial?) that we have fair, honest and legitimate elections in this country. Doesn't she remember 2000, 2002 (Dems lost seats) and 2004? Why will 2006 be any different? She didn't say a word about Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, Hart Intercivic voting machines or any other brand.

Yes, the public can waltz into the polls and vote for some real, true Democrat, a Democrat in the traditional sense. Not some Republicrat like the pro-war corporate pimps and whores we have now. But when the public is voting on easily-rigged and hackable electronic voting machines which have as many problems as Brad has superbly covered on this site, what's the point?

People are putting the cart before the horse. FIRST, our voting system needs to be addressed to restore a legitimate voting system of fairness, honor, integrity and real democracy. THEN work for the progressive candidate. But working for the progressive candidate BEFORE we have a legitimate, honest and fair voting system is a complete waste of time. We already know the outcome of that type of "election" based on our "elections" since 2000. How many more of these so-called "elections" do we need to endure for people to see a pattern going on here?

We need to get rid of these electronic voting machines (which are owned by Repugs) and return to paper ballots/pencils with the ballots counted with members of the public present. Only then will we have democracy in this country.

Unfortunately but not surprising, Florida under the Bush Crime Family has already made paper ballots/pencils illegal.

Too bad Molly Ivins didn't say a peep about any of this! Like many (most?) people, I suspect she's in denial about it and doesn't want to think about it.

For Jerry O'Riordan: Kerry won Ohio. He also won Florida, New Mexico, and (probably) Nevada. Bush might have won Wisconsin, which went to Kerry. Kerry was elected president by a clear margin in both popular and electoral votes. Bush is a fraudulent president, and has been since stealing the White House in 2001.

Our voting system is so pathetic that there is no scientific way to prove what I just posted. There is also no scientific way to disprove it. To abuse a cliche..."If we can put a man on the moon...etc."

The best way to answer the question, "Who won Ohio?" is to ask, "What did the exit polls say?" If you consider one state's exit polls unreliable, then ask, "Is there any possibility, however remote, that Bush could have done several percentage points better than the exit polls in every battleground state?" Don't bother to ask, Jerry...the question has already been answered by mathematics professors.
The answer is "No." (well...one chance in 959,000).

Now ask, "How did we get into this mess to start with?" Answer: The Electoral College. It not only permits the candidate with fewer votes than his opponent to take office at times, it also reserves for individual states the right to set up their own election machinery...EVEN FOR A NATIONAL ELECTION. Is that loony, or what? What other country runs national elections according to sectional prerogatives?

We've seen the consequences. Florida and Ohio today are what Chicago was in 1960, i.e., corrupt regional dominions with the ability to overturn the will of the public for their own selfish ends. Seeing the problem, what did our brilliant friends on Capitol Hill do? They passed HAVA...maybe the worst piece of legislation since the Fugitive Slave Act, which forces even honest state election officials to use crooked voting machines, made by crooked companies in bed with crooked politicians.

And we have the gall to criticize the Ukraine and Belarus for their elections?

When Conyers was chair of the House Judicial Committee, decades ago, he ruled. His party had the majority votes on the committee. He could schedule meetings, subpoena, and oversee. The republicans were the minority party and could do nothing on their own. Except write letters and try to filibuster now and then.

Screw ups of that committee were then the fault of the majority party, not the minority party. The minority party was not blamed because the majority held the chair, the power, and therefore the responsibility for screw-ups.

Now Conyers has been in the minority party for years. He can't do sh*t without the permission of the republican chair. The republicans have the power now. All Conyers can do is write letters to the president and receive answers a year later, if ever. He is powerless.

Yet he and/or his party gets the blame for the screw-ups. That is because the republican dictatorship has spent billions in psyops, talking points, greyops, and other propaganda to precondition Americans to blame the victims.

It's just so GODDAMN MADDENING!! Every damn day, to watch the crimes go slipping by, slipping by, every damn day it's something else!
Now we hear Libby saying it was the damn president who leaked classified information, while, I think it was Kestrel who pointed out, he let the legal system waste truckloads of time & money investigating who the leaker was.
Nice goin', george. Not that we're surprised.

Last night Biden was on with Bill Maher, saying he's running in '08. Perfect! Biden! I'm sorry, he just makes me sick. As does Hillary. I actually got up while Biden was on & looked up the definition of 'smarmy'. I mean, I really expected to see his picture.

I've called Bill Nelson's office (he's my sen) & Hillary's office to ask why they've not stood with Feingold on censure (even though yes I agree censure is a PATHETICALLY meager gesture) and I think I'll just go down the list. I should have done it already. Futile though it may be.

And Josh, re Molly Ivins & elections...
"it's as if she is still living under the illusion (denial?) that we have fair, honest and legitimate elections in this country."
And she's sure got alot of company in that denial. It's astonishing how many times you hear otherwise intelligent-sounding people talking about how the Dems are gonna win back the House & Senate, how this time we'll vote them out.
Talk about the elephant in the room. We've got the whole Jumanji thing in the room & people are walking around it, being polite & sipping their tea & stepping over the steaming piles of shit. GOD it makes me nuts.

#19 Jim,
PLEASE!!! KERRY??? PLEASE!!! Tell me you're not serious! Fine, he's come out of his hiding place recently & graced us with a few words ..! ...well, THANKS, JOHN!! He is pathetic!!! PATHETIC!!! Or lol, did your point just go sailing over my head?

Josh: I share your frustration (to put it midely) over the media and democratic party's complacency over election fraud. But: Do you think the democratic party has any part in this scandal? I can only hope that it is limited to the Christo-fascist zombie brigade (word-up to Marc Maron). Let's mobilize a Fiengold-Conyers (or such) ticket- such a ticket would not cave like Kerry did and will publically pursue fraud in the event of another 2004 (06). This sh#$ is not going away overnight- but we've got to hold tight to the right stuff- the true moral majority is behind this. The Revolution Starts.... now

Your "Dead Democratic Party" illustrates my points in #12, #13, and #15. The polls show an overwhelming favor on the part of the public for Democrats over Republicans for the November elections. You have been brain washed big time, and like the republican dictatorship, are not aware of the mood of the people."

Hello Dredd, well get it right, it's "PRO-WAR Dead Democratic Party." I don't really know how I have been brain washed "big time." It seems to me that you are the one who has been brainwashed big time into thinking that you MUST "toe the Dim party line" at any cost, no matter what they do FOR Bush and FOR the Republicans.

What I have done is to watch the pro-war Dead Democratic Party give Bush and his Republicans as much as possible since 2000. I have watched them refuse to stand for much of anything FOR THE PEOPLE. I have watched them stand FOR Bush and FOR the Republicans instead. If that ain't DEAD I don't know what is! If these Dims (as in dim bulbs) opposed the unPatriot Act, for example, they would NOT vote for it. Regardless of their minority status, they would vote in a unified block AGAINST it if they truly opposed it. But instead, we saw traitors to the US Constitution like Boxer, Hillary, Kerry, Iraq war-profiteer Feinstein and other scum of the earth people vote to give Bush his unPatriot Act. And that's just one example.

I'm not the first person to use the slogan "pro-war Dead Democratic Party." I got it from elected President Clinton's Labor Secretary, Dr Robert Reich. After the 2001 stolen election, Reich wrote an article which I completely agreed with saying that the Democratic Party is Dead. And he has not retracted his statements since and why would he when they've only gotten worse since!

As for the polls showing an overwhelming favor on the part of the public for Democrats over Republicans for the November elections, that does NOT mean that the Dim party is not dead. Many people support and believe in dead things. Look at the Christians. Most people in this country claim to be Christian. They've been believing in and "supporting" Jesus and he's been dead for centuries! Most people get their "news" from the pro-Bush state media (corporate media) so most people don't have a clue what the pro-war Dead Democratic Party has done FOR Bush and NOT done for The People because most people haven't been paying attention. They've been watching American Idol instead.

But if you want to continue your support for this pathetic, dead party of Bush supporters, go right ahead. One would hope that one would have higher standards than that though.

I think that the pro-war Dead Democratic Party is as corrupt as the Repugs. Not all of them but many (most?) of them.

Take war-profiteer Dianne "I'm really a Republican" Feinstein. This millionaire woman and her husband, Richard Blum, are making millions from Iraq and Afghanistan contracts through her husband's company, Perini. Now mind you, because this corporate pimp and whore is up for re-election in November she's now claiming that Bush "misled" her on the reasons for attacking Iraq. Uh huh. She was "misled" all right...so she and her husband could make millions from Iraq and Afghanistan war contracts. The damn LIAR. She and Blum just bought a (what was is?) $6.5 million house in my city of San Francisco over in the wealthy Pacific Heights area. The Center for Public Integrity has reported this:

Now, as for Feingold/Conyers in 2008. That won't happen, Pablo. I'm a pragmatist. This dead party (DNC and DLC) is not about to nominate someone for president that they have distanced themselves from.
At the Senate Judiciary Committe censure hearing ten of the panelís 18 members absented themselves during testimony and debate over the censure resolution submitted by Feingold, including five of the eight Dims. The five included so-called "liberals" like Kennedy, Schumer, Biden, Durbin and war-profiteer Feinstein.
I'm not that big on Feingold. Granted, he's one of the very few trying to do something for The People but he buys into this bogus "war on terror" nonsense. I appreciate him standing up and doing his job that most of the others refuse to do, but this dead party ain't going to put up Feingold or Conyers in 2008. They will prop up some pro-war neocons like Hillary or Kerry. Hillary is to the right of Bush on Iran.

And if there is an election in 2008 on these voting machines---which belong in the trash----then Hillary or Kerry will concede the next morning and that's that.

To tell you the truth, I'll be surprised if Bush leaves in 2009. I don't think he has any intention of leaving then. They wouldn't be putting a dictatorship in place if he had any plans of leaving. And there's no one to force him to leave either. I think most of the people would once again say, "Get over it."

Josh:
"All tyranical governements eventually fall"
-Howard Zinn
This is bad, worse has happened in the past. Why should we think of our country as separate from this type of fate? Charles Bowden, Jello Biafra etc. predicted this in the 1980's! This is what capatalism looks like unfeterred.
The energy from the 2002-2003 movement to stop the Iraq invasion: the 2003-2004 movement to oust W.: these have not gone away.
Your pragmatism sounds too much like defeatism and, to quote W. himself, "Building democracies is hard work".
I tend to be more hopeful. Where your pessimism is arguably justified, it can only be self fullfilling. We have to work within the democratic party, or get fricking busy with building a third party candidate that is electable. To the dems credit, they have been neutered by the complete control of all branches and a republican party that will back their man no matter how wacked.
Screw Hillary or Kerry: let's back a Dean with a little more savy and electability.

You think my pragmatism sounds too much like defeatism. To me you're wishful thinking. And why the hell are you quoting that piece of trash George W Bush and some quote about democracy when this international war criminal doesn't give a damn about democracy ANYWHERE?!

As for the Dims, they neutered themselves. They are the ones who laid down to the Repugs and Bush in 2000 and did not do all that they could have. They are the ones who put up Al "Wet Noodle" Gore in 2000. They are the ones who did not fight the Bush Crime Family and our stolen "elections' in 2000, 2002 or 2004. They are the ones who have not fought Bush on much of what he has accomplished. Regardless of their numbers, the Dims could have stood up FOR the People and opposed every single thing Bush and the Republicans wanted. Period. They have NOT.

Our US Congress is a pro-war, one-party system with two right wings and yes we do need a SECOND party (not a third party).

I would not back Howard Dean. He's pro-war. He has said that he hopes Bush is "successful" in Iraq! Sigh! Howard Dean is a sell-out. I've heard him interviewed on Air America several times and frankly he didn't sound like he had a clue about anything. He doesn't even sound like he even goes to progressive news websites. Howard Dean is not for bringing the troops home NOW. He's for "redeploying" the troops and sending them to other parts of the world (to be killed). He, too, has bought into this "war on terror" nonsense.

You and I are going around in circles here. Why back Dean or anyone else until we have a fair, honest and legitimate election system in this country? Again, you're putting the cart before the horse, just like Molly Ivins. One can easily predict the results of future "elections" under the fraudulent system we now have with these easily-rigged and hackable electronic voting machines.